The main legal point established in the judgment is that criminal and civil proceedings may be simultaneously initiated but in the light of inconsistent stand, criminal proceeding may be quashed.

(1) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for quashment of criminal proceeding pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur in Criminal Complaint Case No. 364/2004 instituted at the instance of the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 205, 471, 465, 467, 468, 294, 506- B and 323 of the IPC against the petitioners.

(2) QUASHMENT of criminal proceeding is prayed on the ground that on the basis of same set of facts the alleged father of the complainant/respondent herein had filed a civil suit in the year 1998 and after lapse of more than three years from the date of alleged execution of sale deed, filing of criminal complaint relating to the act committed by the petitioners herein against deceased Purushottam in the year 1998, is only abuse of the process of the Court.

Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that one Purushottam (since deceased) had filed civil suit in the year 1998 against the petitioners herein and other persons for declaration of title and injunction in which it has been pleaded that the petitioners herein have got executed the sale deed dated 25-9-1997 of the land belonging to him by committing forgery and presenting some fake person as Purushottam which has been specifically denied by the petitioners herein. According to the case of the respondent herein, on 3-4- 2000 Purushottam had executed will deed in favour of the complainant/respondent herein and after the death of Purushottam, the present complaint was filed against the petitioners and two others for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 205, 471, 128, 465, 467, 468, 294, 506-B, 323 of the IPC and 82 of the Registration Act. After making enquiry under Chapter-XV of the Code, learned Judicial Magistrate First Class registered case against the petitioners vide order dated 6-5-2002 in connection with offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 205, 471, 465, 467, 468, 294, 506-B and 323 of the IPC. Process has been issued, the petitioners have made their appearance and filed this petition on the ground that firstly, civil suit has been filed and during the pendency of such civil suit in absence of any admitted fact, criminal proceeding is not maintainable and the same is abuse of the process of the Court.

(3) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(4) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in case of admitted facts civil and criminal proceedings may be initiated, but if the facts are disputed, criminal proceeding is not maintainable and parties are required to avail civil remedy before the civil Court. In this case, parties are already availing civil remedy and the alleged offence said to have been committed is against deceased Purushottam, not against the respondent herein, therefore, the respondent herein/complainant is not the person aggrieved and he is not competent to lodge FIR or file complaint for taking cognizance against the petitioners. Most of the offences are punishable with imprisonment, for three years, therefore, except for offence under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC taking cognizance after lapse of three years is bar in terms of Section 468 of the Code. Learned counsel further submits that the complaint does not disclose the commission of offence and statements of the complainant and his witnesses do not clearly disclose the commission of offence. Learned counsel placed reliance in the matter of B. Suresh Yadav v. Sharifa Bee, 2008 CriLJ 431 in which the Apex Court has held that contrary stand taken by the complainant in civil and criminal proceeding is not permissible, though liability of a person can be both civil and criminal at the same time, inconsistent stand taken by complainant assumes significance, and taking into consideration the inconsistent stand, criminal proceeding is required to be quashed. Learned counsel also argued that the petitioners have not cheated the c